Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

A Certain Logic in Russia

Kiriyenko said the impact from the Fukushima plant disaster would not only increase safety concerns but also quicken demand for new reactors to replace the industry's ageing plants.

"There will be a need to build new plants more quickly to more swiftly replace previous-generation plants," he said.

He added that Russia may speed the retirement of its older generation plants in the wake of Japan's nuclear accident.

I can’t decide if what Kiriyenko is asking here is, essentially, why let Fukushima go to waste? If the accident there allows new plants to be built in Russia whether or not they are needed, that seems rather too cynical. Because the corollary would be to say that the older plants need replacing and that would be irresponsible.

Maybe Kiriyenko is just musing out loud. He does say this:

Russia has said it has no intention of curbing its drive for more nuclear power at home and for export.

Russia here presumably being Kiriyenko. Russia being Russia, he can say whatever he feels is true, but that can also change rather rapidly. For now, though, it looks like the lumbering eastern bear will continue apace.

A senior official at the U.N. nuclear agency is suggesting the worst may be over as far as radiation leaks at Japan's stricken reactor complex are concerned.

Denis Flory says he expects the total amount of radiation releases to be only a "small increase from what it is today" if "things go as foreseen." But Flory, a deputy director general at the International Atomic Energy Agency, emphasized Tuesday that he was estimating final radiation releases.

The story doesn’t identify him more specifically, but Denis Florey is the IAEA’s safety chief.

One person has died after police in western India clashed with locals protesting against the planned construction of a nuclear power plant.

Police said they were forced to open fire after protesters attacked a police station close to the proposed site in Jaitapur, in the state of Maharashtra.

Sadly, this means one more person has been killed protesting nuclear energy than has been killed by nuclear energy in India. Still, that’s one too many.

---

The U.N.’s Summit on the Safe and Innovative Use of Nuclear Energy, held in Kiev, Ukraine, had a keynote speech by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. There may be more to say about the summit, but Ban’s speech seemed judicious and careful. This, though, was striking:

“[W]e must put a sharper focus on the new nexus between natural disasters and nuclear safety,” he stated. “The challenge of climate change is bringing with it greater extremes of weather. Nuclear power plants must be prepared to withstand everything from earthquakes to tsunamis, from fires to floods.”

According to the IAEA, 64 new reactors are under construction. Today, 443 are operating in 29 countries worldwide, some located in areas of seismic activity.

Ban is completely right as long as we acknowledge that planning virtually any power plant takes account of weather and natural disasters and at a level that surpasses anything seen at a prospective site.

But more interesting here is the intermingling of weather and natural disaster. Fukushima Daiichi was struck by an earthquake and tsunami. Not severe weather, not anything that could be counted as a result of climate change.

I’m not sure it is wise to conflate the two – weather can be predicted to an extent, natural disasters not as much. It behooves us to recognize that one thing is not exactly like the other.

It’d also be worthwhile to recognize that the earthquake does not appear to have been the cause of problems at Fukushima – we can’t know this for sure until the government accounts for the accident – but the tsunami afterward. One could say reasonably – for now – that the combination proved determinative.

But that makes the media worry about siting nuclear plants in “areas of seismic activity,” as reflected in this story, seem a little off base. Other plants in Japan were struck by the same earthquake – and some harder than Fukushima – but suffered minor if any damage.

Sergei Kiriyenko

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Labels

Comments

Anonymous said…

"The country that turns away from atomic energy today, will become dependent tomorrow on those who did not curtail it," Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's state-owned nuclear power monopoly Rosatom.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.